TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3(C) passed by Customs, Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, copy of which is Annexure "G" to the writ petition and for an appropriate writ to prohibit the Tribunal to proceed with Reference Application No. 12 of 1988 by assuming wrongly jurisdiction to entertain the same. It is stated that the respondent No. 1 CEGAT being a Statutory Tribunal created under the Customs Act is circumscribed by the provisions of the Act and/or the Rules framed thereunder and it is to discharge its functions in accordance with the provisions of the Act and/or Rules. It is further stated that proviso to Section 130(1) of the Customs Act clearly specifies the period within which an application for Reference under sub-section (1) of Section 130 is to be pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned order the Tribunal is alleged to have condoned the delay in filing the Reference Application. Being aggrieved the petitioners have come to this Court on the ground that the Tribunal has acted beyond the jurisdiction in condoning the delay and by entertaining the Reference Application. 2. Mr. Subrata Roychowdhury, the Senior Advocate for the writ petitioners has mainly argued :- (i) The first application for condonation of delay dated 26th of October, 1988 filed on 31st October, 1988 and numbered as Miscellaneous Application No. 215 of 1988 and signed by Sri P.C. Jain, Junior Departmental Representative is non est in law and has to be totally ignored. (ii) As far as the second application filed by the Collector of Customs wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent No. 2 to condone the delay in filing the Reference Application. In support of the contention of the petitioners, the attention of the Court has been drawn to A.I.R. 1962 S.C., Page 361 and A.I.R. 1975 S.C. Page 1039 (The Commissioner of Sales tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow v. M/s. Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur). 3. The writ petition is strongly opposed by the contesting respondents. Mr. N.C. Roychowdhury, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent Customs Authorities has since submitted that sub-section (1) of Section 130 of the Customs Act clearly postulates that a Reference Application has to be presented to the Appellate Tribunal within the period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of the order in respect of which que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment), by application in such form as may be specified by rules made in this behalf, accompanied, where the application is made by the other party, by a fee of two hundred rupees, require the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of such order and, subject to the other provisions contained in this section, the Appellate Tribunal shall, within one hundred and twenty days of the receipt of such application, draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court : Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application within the period hereinbefore specified, allow it to be present within a further pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay cannot be equated with the concept of the provisions of Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act. According to him, there is no outer limit as envisaged under Section 5 of the Limitation Act whereas the outer limit to condone the delay under the provisions of the Customs Act is circumscribed by the proviso to Section 130 of the Customs Act. There is a basic difference as to appreciate the scope of u/s 5 of the Limitation Act and the scope of Section 130 of the Customs Act. True, the scope under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is larger. The scope of Section 130 of the Customs Act is limited. No Reference can be filed beyond 60 (sixty) days from the date of the receipt of the order. There is extension of a further period of 30 (thirty) days pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ursidiction to treat within limitation, and application filed before it beyond such maximum time limit specified in the Statute, by excluding the time spent in prosecuting in good faith and with due diligence in prior proceedings, on the analogy of Section 13(2) of the Limitation. It has further been found that where legislature clearly declares its intent in the scheme and language of a statute, it is the duty of the Court to give effect to the same without scanning its wisdom or policy and without engrafting, adding or implying anything which is not convenient to or consistent with such expressed intent of the law-giver, more so if the Statute is a taxing statute. 6. The aforesaid principle is not in doubt. The Tribunal being a creature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
